Hello I am new here, so if this is inappropriate let me know an I will delete it.

Abstract   

 A formal protest is respectfully submitted on the concept of ‘superposition of light waves and how it has been applied to the double slit and quantum mechanics. An argument, including experiments supporting the protest, is presented. The principle of light wave superposition is challenged. The superposition of light waves is found to be incorrect and is the source of confusion and unreal concepts.

 Polarized radio wave communications theory is investigated.  An enhancement of Huygens monopole wavelets theory is considered, impingements and an electromagnetic dipole dumbbell-like shape becomes the only answer. The dipole shape provides a new look at light wave superposition. The dumbbell shape gives the illusion of duality, in that when dumbbells collide, they spin around another giving the appearance of passing directly through another. The impingement theory is introduced, and two types of dumbbell collisions are presented giving the appearance of a on/off switch. The concept of superposition is replaced by the impingement of dipoles and is applied to the mystery of the double-slit. Without the concept of impingement, only unreal conclusions can be reached—and this is what has happened!

 Over the years, it appears that the use of the water ripple tank has caused great confusion in the interference of light waves. This early fundamental physics error has sent physics down the wrong path. This is a serious error. This paper provides the classical solution to the wave-particle duality dilemma that the double slit has introduced. We have found the absolute definitive answer to light wave duality. This revelation rocks the foundation of physics.

 

Keywords

 

Superposition, Wave-Particle Duality, Double Slit, Impinge Theory, Superposition Error, Quantum Theory

WaveToWave.Ass.134.pdf

Moderator Note

Any material for discussion needs to be posted here - not an upload (or link)

---

Perhaps you could start with specifically how superposition fails - in what experiment(s) does it not occur?

Certainly if you overlap two incoherent sources, it properly predicts intensity, and it gives us the spacing of maxima and minima in interference (spectrometers and spectrophotometers work, after all)

35 minutes ago, LoggerTodd said:

Hello I am new here

You posted here 10 years ago, but did not follow up. Just FYI

Please delete the post. I am trying to delete it myself.

48 minutes ago, LoggerTodd said:

Please delete the post. I am trying to delete it myself.

You'll find most science forums operate in similar ways: Discussion required within the thread, not (solely) via links. And deleting posts is almost never done. It's disruptive for posts to appear and vanish.

You started this thread - did you want to advertise your PDF, or did you want to discuss your idea/claim?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Any material for discussion needs to be posted here - not an upload (or link}

There was a tab to upload so I did. I am not sure what you mean?

I can not find a way to delete my message. Any suggestions?

7 hours ago, LoggerTodd said:

There was a tab to upload so I did. I am not sure what you mean?

Rule 2.7

Upload is for reference/supplemental material only (mainly it’s meant for pictures to be displayed in the post)

It reduces the number of people spamming us with walls of text, and helps force them to actually engage.

7 hours ago, LoggerTodd said:

I can not find a way to delete my message. Any suggestions?

Editing is only possible for a limited time.

Just now, LoggerTodd said:

  7 hours ago, swansont said:

Any material for discussion needs to be posted here - not an upload (or link}

If it has been read properly. A brief discussion.

18 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

You'll find most science forums operate in similar ways: Discussion required within the thread, not (solely) via links. And deleting posts is almost never done. It's disruptive for posts to appear and vanish.

You started this thread - did you want to advertise your PDF, or did you want to discuss your idea/claim?

Just now, LoggerTodd said:

  13 hours ago, LoggerTodd said:

Any material for discussion needs to be posted here - not an upload (or link}

  18 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

You'll find most science forums operate in similar ways: Discussion required within the thread, not (solely) via links. And deleting posts is almost never done. It's disruptive for posts to appear and vanish.

If the paper has been read properly, a brief discussion would be in order.